DOCSLIB.ORG

A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States April 2013 ! RFF DP 13-12 A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States What Led to the Boom? Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org DISCUSSION PAPER A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom? Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick Abstract This is the first academic paper that reviews the economic, policy, and technology history of shale gas development in the United States. The primary objective of the paper is to answer the question of what led to the shale gas boom in the United States to help inform stakeholders in those countries that are attempting to develop their own shale gas resources. This paper is also a case study of the incentive, process, and impact of technology innovations and the role of government in promoting technology innovations in the energy industry. Our review finds that government policy, private entrepreneurship, technology innovations, private land and mineral rights ownership, high natural gas prices in the 2000s, and a number of other factors all made important contributions to the shale gas boom. Key Words: shale gas, policy, research and development, technology, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling JEL Classification Numbers: Q4, O3, L71 © 2013 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors. Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review. Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1! 2. Government Policies ........................................................................................................... 6! 2.1 What Led to the Government Policies on Unconventional Natural Gas? .................... 6! 2.2 Incentive Pricing and Tax Credit .................................................................................. 8! 2.3 R&D Programs.............................................................................................................. 9! 3. The Development History of the Barnett Shale Play ..................................................... 15! 3.1 Why Did Mitchell Energy Develop the Barnett Play? ................................................ 16! 3.2 How Did Technologies and Know-How Evolve at Mitchell Energy? ....................... 19! 3.3 Did Environmental Issues Affect Mitchell Energy? ................................................... 24! 3.4 What External Help Did Mitchell Energy Obtain? ..................................................... 24! 3.5 How Did the Mitchell–Devon Merger Accelerate Development? ............................. 27! 4. High Natural Gas Prices in the 2000s ............................................................................. 28! 5. Other Contributing Factors ............................................................................................. 29! 5.1. Geology ...................................................................................................................... 29! 5.2. Land/Mineral Ownership ........................................................................................... 30! 5.3 Market Structure ......................................................................................................... 30! 5.4 Water Availability ....................................................................................................... 31! 5.5. Natural Gas Pipeline Infrastructure ........................................................................... 31! 5.6 Capital Market ............................................................................................................ 31! 5.7 Other Factors ............................................................................................................... 32! 6. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................ 32! References .............................................................................................................................. 35! Resources for the Future Wang and Krupnick A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom?! 1. Introduction Shale gas experienced an extraordinary boom in the United States in the past decade. Figure 1 shows the annual and projected production of natural gas, by type, in the United States from 1990 to 2020. Figure 2 shows the same thing for shale gas in the United States from 1979 to 2020. Shale gas accounted for only 1.6 percent of total US natural gas production in 2000, but this percentage had jumped to 4.1 percent by 2005 and to an astonishing 23.1 percent by 2010. This remarkable growth of shale gas production in the United States has spurred increasing interest in exploring shale resources in other areas of the world. A number of countries, including China,1 Mexico,2 Argentina,3 Poland,4 India,5 and Australia6 are considering or are in the process of developing their own shale gas resources.7 Naturally, scholars, policymakers, and many other stakeholders who are interested in the development of shale gas outside of the United States are asking about the important factors for successfully developing shale gas resources. One way to shed light on this issue is to learn from the US experience. While it is difficult to know definitively the necessary or sufficient conditions for stoking a shale gas boom, a historical review of the US experience can at least inform the conditions that helped. In this paper, we ! We are grateful to Jan Mares for helpful discussions and comments and to Yushuang Wang for excellent research assistance. We thank Energy Foundation’s China Sustainable Energy Program for financial assistance. Wang: [email protected]; Krupnick: [email protected]. 1 China has launched two rounds of shale gas block auctions, and the Chinese government issued, in March 2012, the Shale Gas Development Plan 2011–2015, which seeks to reach an annual shale gas production of 6.5 Bcm by 2015. 2 According to International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012, p.111), Mexico is “keen to exploit shale gas resources to boost the country’s flagging output of unconventional oil and gas.” 3 See Gonzalez and Orihuela (2012). 4 See Kenarov (2012). 5 See Stern (2012). 6 See IEA (2012) for shale gas development in Australia, the sixth-largest shale gas resource country (Energy Information Administration 2011). 7 Some other countries (e.g., France) have banned the use of hydraulic fracturing to drill shale gas. 1 Resources for the Future Wang and Krupnick provide the first academic review of the economic, policy, and technology history of shale gas development to answer the question of what led to the shale gas boom in the United States. 8 Figure 1. Annual US Natural Gas Production and Projected Production by Gas Type, 1990–2020 Conventional gas Tight gas 25 Coal bed methane Shale gas 20 15 AnnualProduction (Tcf) 10 5 1990 2000 2010 2020 Source: Energy Information Administration 2013. Figure 2. Annual Shale Gas Production and Projected Production, 1979–2020 EnCana EIA EIA Projection 10000 8000 6000 4000 AnnualProduction (Bcf) 2000 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Sources: Energy Information Administration 2013 and Curtis 2009. 8 Some newspaper articles and consultancy reports, when discussing whether a country other than the US can develop shale gas successfully, often mention in passing what factors contributed to the shale gas boom in the US The longest discussion of the history of shale gas development in the media is a report by the Breakthrough Institute (Trembath et al 2012), which focuses on “government’s role in the development of hydraulic fracturing in shale.” 2 Resources for the Future Wang and Krupnick For a real boom to occur in the private sector, high profitability, or at least the expectation of future high profitability, is a necessary ingredient. Our review suggests that a number of factors converged in the early 2000s to make it profitable for firms to produce large quantities of shale gas, but the most important factor was technology innovation, which took a long time to develop and ultimately made it cost-effective to produce shale gas. The main question we address in this paper is then, where did the technology innovations come from? Our review finds that some of the key technology innovations resulted from government research and development (R&D) programs and private entrepreneurship that aimed to develop unconventional natural gas (e.g., shale gas, coalbed methane, and tight gas), but some of the key technologies (e.g., horizontal drilling and three-dimensional [3-D] seismic imaging) were largely developed by the oil industry to explore and produce oil instead of unconventional natural gas. The seed of the shale gas boom was planted in the late 1970s when the US government decided to fund R&D programs and provide tax credits (and incentive pricing) for developing unconventional natural gas in response to the severe natural gas shortage at the time. These policies were justified on the grounds that private firms did not have the incentive to make large and risky R&D investments to develop technologies necessary for extracting unconventional natural gas. The factors underpinning this view were summarized by the National Research Council (NRC 2001, p. 195) and Morgantown
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Power of Problem Solvers
    the power of problem solvers Chevron’s greatest asset – our people – are focused on making energy... more aordable more reliable ever-cleaner We believe life depends on energy and we’ve taken steps to improve lives through innovation since our founding. California Star Oil Works, a Chevron predecessor, hits pay dirt in Pico Canyon and gives birth to the California oil industry. Steam-powered technology utilized by California Star Oil Works takes the place of primitive solutions like saplings and 1876 rudimentary drill bits, leading to California’s first commercially productive well. After months of hard work, technical diculties and budget constraints, the Texas oil boom kicks o when Captain Anthony Lucas strikes a close to 1901 100,000-barrel-a-day gusher at Spindletop. Standard Oil develops Red Crown aviation gasoline, the first gasoline in the U.S. specifically designed for aviation use. Red Crown powers the aircraft that Charles Lindbergh flies 1917 across the Atlantic. After three years of unsuccessful drilling and mechanical problems in Saudi Arabia, Geologist Max Steineke urges his team to persevere – and it finally pays off on March 3. With the Arab Zone providing the 1938 main source of Saudi Arabia’s oil still today, Steineke’s discovery has enormous implications for the Middle Eastern oil market. Gulf Oil Corp. and Texaco Inc. work as a part of a consortium of U.S. oil companies. Researchers develop a 3D seismic data-processing method, an innovation which helps vet prospective oil fields as well as rejuvenate existing fields. In the following decades, Chevron continues to use 3D 1978 visualization technology, reducing the risk of dry wells and drilling unnecessary wells, minimizing our environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Gold: Texas Oil
    Black Gold: Texas Oil The discovery and development of Texas oil and natural gas fields was a continuing economic boon to Texas. It allowed economic diversification, establishing a Texas industrial base with the construction of oil fields, pipelines, refineries, railroads, port facilities, and their attendant support industries. The Texas “oil boom” also wove itself indelibly into the fabric of Texas culture and myth. https://education.texashistory.unt.edu Black Gold: Texas Oil Spindletop Spindletop: The Lucas Gusher, January 10, 1901 Oil “black gold” erupted 150 feet in the air from the Lucas Gusher near Beaumont, Texas. The well was not capped for nine days and lost an estimated 850,000 barrels of oil. It produced an estimated 75,000 barrels of oil a day. Peak annual production was 17.5 million barrels in 1902. The Lucas Gusher, 1901. Photograph 11.25 in. x 14 in. University of Texas at Arlington Libraries, 1901. https://education.texashistory.unt.edu Permalink: http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-41398 Black Gold: Texas Oil Oilmen in the field Oilmen at the Orangefield during the 1910s. Oilmen posing in front of a wooden oil derrick surrounded by pipes and tools. “Men with Oil Derrick.” Photograph B&W: 5.25in. X 3.5 in. Heritage House Museum. https://education.texashistory.unt.edu Permalink: http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-37097 Black Gold: Texas Oil the Humble oil well Humble oil well in Orange, Texas in 1920 Oil flowing from the Humble well to storage facilities. Note the rather crude pipe and sluice design used to funnel oil from the well to holding facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Context of Public Acceptance of Hydraulic Fracturing: Is Louisiana
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2012 The context of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique? Crawford White Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation White, Crawford, "The onc text of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique?" (2012). LSU Master's Theses. 3956. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3956 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: IS LOUISIANA UNIQUE? A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Environmental Sciences by Crawford White B.S. Georgia Southern University, 2010 August 2012 Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the memory of three of the most important people in my life, all of whom passed on during my time here. Arthur Earl White 4.05.1919 – 5.28.2011 Berniece Baker White 4.19.1920 – 4.23.2011 and Richard Edward McClary 4.29.1982 – 9.13.2010 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee first of all: Dr. Margaret Reams, my advisor, for her unending and enthusiastic support for this project; Professor Mike Wascom, for his wit and legal expertise in hunting down various laws and regulations; and Maud Walsh for the perspective and clarity she brought this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Vast Energy Resources Wasting Away in the Texas Permian Basin a Special Report on Natural Gas Flaring FLARING REPORT 2
    Vast energy resources wasting away in the Texas Permian Basin A special report on natural gas flaring FLARING REPORT 2 I Introduction 3 II Trends in the Texas Permian 5 III Regulatory solutions 7 IV On-site gas capture opportunities 8 V Conclusion 10 Table of contents FLARING REPORT 3 I. Introduction A new Texas oil boom is in full swing. Oil isn’t the only resource in abundant The United States Geological Survey supply. There’s also ample natural gas (USGS) estimates 20 billion barrels of (known as associated gas), freed from untapped oil reserves in one single area underground shale during hydraulic of the Permian, an oil and gas basin fracturing, the process of pumping contained largely by the western part of millions of gallons of chemicals, sand and Texas and extending into southeastern water down a well to break apart rock and New Mexico 1. release the fuel. A rush to produce higher Earlier this year 2, the Energy value oil, however, has some Permian Information Administration (EIA) drillers simply throwing away the gas. predicted the Permian Basin would Lack of access to gas pipelines, low gas experience the country’s highest growth prices, and outmoded regulations are in oil production, and in August EIA driving this waste. reported the Permian has more operating A new analysis of the amount of Texas rigs than any other basin in the nation, Permian gas lost due to intentional with oil production exceeding 2.5 million releases (venting) and burning of the gas barrels per day 3. Meanwhile, companies (flaring) by the top 15 producers in recent including ExxonMobil are investing billions boom years reveals a wide performance in leases 4, and oilfield services giant gap.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Shallow Gas, NORM, and Trace Metals
    September 2015 Understanding and Managing Environmental Roadblocks to Shale Gas Development: An Analysis of Shallow Gas, NORM, and Trace Metals Final Report June 14, 2013 to September 30, 2015 RPSEA Award No 11122-56 by J.-P. Nicot, P. Mickler, T. Larson, M.C. Castro R. Darvari, R. Smyth, K. Uhlman, C. Omelon with participation of L. Bouvier, Tao Wen, Z.L. Hildenbrand, M. Slotten, J.M. Aldrige, C.M. Hall, R. Costley, J. Anderson, R. Reedy, J. Lu, Yuan Liu, K. Romanak, S.L. Porse, and Texas Water Development Board Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924 Understanding and Managing Environmental Roadblocks to Shale Gas Development: An Analysis of Shallow Gas, NORM, and Trace Metals Jean-Philippe Nicot1, Patrick Mickler1, Toti Larson2, M. Clara Castro3 Roxana Darvari1, Rebecca Smyth1, Kristine Uhlman+1, Christopher Omelon2 with participation of L. Bouvier+3, Tao Wen3, Z.L. Hildenbrand4, M. Slotten+5, J.M. Aldrige+5, C.M. Hall3, R. Costley1, J. Anderson1, R. Reedy1, J. Lu1, Yuan Liu+1, K. Romanak1, S.L. Porse+1, and TWDB6 1: Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin 2: Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin 3: Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 4: Inform Environmental LLC, Dallas, TX 5: Environmental Management and Sustainability Program, St. Edwards University, Austin, TX 6: Texas Water Development Board, Austin, TX +: previously at Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924 Disclaimer From DOE/NETL: “This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oil Boom After Spindletop
    425 11/18/02 10:41 AM Page 420 Why It Matters Now The Oil Boom Petroleum refining became the 2 leading Texas industry, and oil remains important in the Texas After Spindletop economy today. TERMS & NAMES OBJECTIVES MAIN IDEA boomtown, refinery, Humble 1. Analyze the effects of scientific discov- After Spindletop, the race was on to Oil and Refining Company, eries and technological advances on the discover oil in other parts of Texas. wildcatter, oil strike, oil and gas industry. In just 30 years, wells in all regions Columbus M. “Dad” Joiner, 2. Explain how C. M. “Dad” Joiner’s work of the state made Texas the world hot oil affected Texas. leader in oil production. 3. Trace the boom-and-bust cycle of oil and gas during the 1920s and 1930s. With the discovery of oil at Spindletop, thousands of fortune seekers flooded into Texas, turning small towns into overcrowded cities almost overnight. An oil worker’s wife described life in East Texas in 1931. There were people living in tents with children. There were a lot of them that had these great big old cardboard boxes draped around trees, living under the trees. And any- and everywhere in the world they could live, they lived. Some were just living in their cars, and a truck if they had a truck. And I tell you, that was bad. Just no place to stay whatsoever. Mary Rogers, interview in Life in the Oil Fields Oil, Oil Everywhere The oil boom of the 1920s and 1930s caused sudden, tremendous growth in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Inverness Council Vents About Park Funds
    Soccer romp: Panther girls outclass Pirates /B1 THURSDAY JOB TODAY CITRUS COUNTY & next morning HUNTING ? 000DOPN HIGH APPLY TODAY 81 Partly cloudy. LOW PAGE A4 at VILLAGE SEE IT TOYOTA ON PG. C13 62 www.chronicleonline.com JANUARY 10, 2013 Florida’s Best Community Newspaper Serving Florida’s Best Community 50¢ VOLUME 118 ISSUE 156 Inverness council vents about park funds to make Whispering Pines Park ways to make the county the ground.” work is beyond me, because aren’t accountable.” Council President Cabot County witholding $300K payment our children the future? Or is the Councilman Ken Hinkle McBride called the county’s with- port our future?” he said, refer- pointed out the city’s budget is holding of payment a “slap in the NANCY KENNEDY Inverness Mayor Bob Plaisted ring to Port Citrus. open to inspection and bristled at city’s face,” but also said the city Staff writer acknowledged the “seething that’s Plaisted added, “The county (is- the idea of turning the park’s man- has a friend in Commissioner going on beneath the skin” of sued) a memorandum of under- agement over to the county, as had Scott Adams. INVERNESS — The anger in council members and said, “I standing — we contribute $1.8 been suggested as an option “I don’t understand if there’s the room was palpable as mem- know that we’re all upset. We want million annually to the county in 2008. some passive-aggressive game bers of Inverness City Council dis- the best for our children, and we budget and we don’t have a mem- “We’re going to manage the park that’s going on, but as a resident of cussed the future of Whispering know that we’re going to do every- orandum of understanding on — we just signed a 10-year agree- the city and as a council member I Pines Park and the county’s with- thing we can to make Whispering how they spend our tax dollars … ment with the state,” he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska: Early Frustrations Led to Later Success by ROSS COEN
    EXPLORER 2 JUNE 2014 WWW.AAPG.ORG Vol. 35, No. 6 June 2014 EXPLORER PRESIDENT’SCOLUMN Doing What We Said We’d Do – Well, Did We? BY LEE F. KRYSTINIK The end of the “doing what we say we of daily business that have been dealt with, do” theme has arrived – but not the end but these are some of the larger issues of doing what we say we will do at AAPG! addressed by the EC this year. We must work much more I wish to thank Randi Martinsen, our ell, much as promised by my effectively at showing our relevance president-elect, along with Richard Ball predecessors, the year indeed has (secretary), Tom Ewing (vice president- Wflown by quickly and this is my last within geoscience – perhaps most Sections), John Kaldi (vice president- column to you as president. Soon, I will find especially to the public. Regions), Deborah Sacrey (treasurer), Mike myself with more time to explore for oil and Sweet (editor) and Larry Wickstrom (HoD gas and get back to riding my horse – if he chair), who all served on this year’s EC KRYSTINIK still recognizes me. with distinction, hard work and exceptional So did we actually accomplish what we u Advisory Council Initiatives – The AAPG I offer congratulations to all of our professionalism. They have done a great job set out to do this year? House of Delegates reached a consensus volunteers and staff who have worked so for AAPG this year! This year’s Executive Committee and passed a revision of the sponsorship diligently to create this additional surplus! Huge thanks also to David Curtiss, addressed a broad range of
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Mauricio Rodriguez
    Tilburg University Essays in political economy and resource economic Rodriguez Acosta, Mauricio Publication date: 2016 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Rodriguez Acosta, M. (2016). Essays in political economy and resource economic: A macroeconomic approach. CentER, Center for Economic Research. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. sep. 2021 ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS (A MACROECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE) MAURICIO RODRIGUEZ A. June 3, 2016 ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS (A MACROECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE) PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. E.H.L. Aarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Uni- versiteit op vrijdag 3 juni 2016 om 10.15 uur door MAURICIO ANDRÉS RODRÍGUEZ ACOSTA geboren op 10 augustus 1985 te Bogota, Colombia.
    [Show full text]
  • BP Energy Outlook Can Make a Useful Contribution to Informing Discussions About Future Energy Needs and Trends
    Disclaimer This presentation contains forward-looking statements, particularly those regarding global economic growth, population and productivity growth, energy consumption, energy efficiency, policy support for renewable energies, sources of energy supply and growth of carbon emissions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, and depend on circumstances, that will or may occur in the future. Actual outcomes may differ depending on a variety of factors, including product supply, demand and pricing; political stability; general economic conditions; demographic changes; legal and regulatory developments; availability of new technologies; natural disasters and adverse weather conditions; wars and acts of terrorism or sabotage; and other factors discussed elsewhere in this presentation. BP disclaims any obligation to update this presentation. Neither BP p.l.c. nor any of its subsidiaries (nor their respective officers, employees and agents) accept liability for any inaccuracies or omissions or for any direct, indirect, special, consequential or other losses or damages of whatsoever kind in connection to this presentation or any information contained in it. Unless noted otherwise, data definitions are based on the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, and historical energy data up to 2014 are consistent with the 2015 edition of the Review. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expressed in terms of real Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) at 2010 prices. 2016 Energy Outlook 1 © BP p.l.c. 2016 Contents Page Introduction and executive summary 4 Base case Primary energy 9 Fuel by fuel detail 19 Key issues • What drives energy demand? 44 • The changing outlook for carbon emissions 48 • What have we learned about US shale? 52 • China’s changing energy needs 58 Main changes 63 2016 Energy Outlook 2 © BP p.l.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Exxonmobil Opposition Statement Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing Risks
    311 California Street, Suite 510 www.asyousow.org San Francisco, CA 94104 BUILDING A SAFE, JUST, AND SUSTAINABLE WORLD SINCE 1992 SHAREHOLDER REBUTTAL TO THE EXXONMOBIL OPPOSITION STATEMENT REGARDING HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RISKS 240.14a‐103 Notice of Exempt Solicitation U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington DC 20549 NAME OF REGISTRANT: ExxonMobil NAME OF PERSON RELYING ON EXEMPTION: As You Sow Foundation ADDRESS OF PERSON RELYING ON EXEMPTION: 311 California Street. Ste. 510, San Francisco, CA 94104 Written materials are submitted pursuant to Rule 14a‐6(g)(1) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Submission is not required of this filer under the terms of the Rule, but is made voluntarily in the interest of public disclosure and consideration of these important issues. Proposal # 8—Report on Hydraulic Fracturing A proposal filed by As You Sow on behalf of the Park Foundation, and the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate; the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; the Benedictine Sisters, Boerne, Texas; The Brainerd Foundation; Zevin Asset Management LLC on behalf of The John Maher Trust; First Affirmative Financial Network LLC on behalf of Izetta Smith; and Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica; is centered on two concepts essential to investor confidence: disclosure and the mitigation of risks. Shareholders are being asked to vote FOR a report on the short‐term and long‐term risks to ExxonMobil’s operations, finances and gas exploration associated with community concerns, known regulatory impacts,
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Fracturing, Horizontal Drilling
    April 2013 RFF DP 13-12 A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States What Led to the Boom? Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org DISCUSSION PAPER A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom? Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick Abstract This is the first academic paper that reviews the economic, policy, and technology history of shale gas development in the United States. The primary objective of the paper is to answer the question of what led to the shale gas boom in the United States to help inform stakeholders in those countries that are attempting to develop their own shale gas resources. This paper is also a case study of the incentive, process, and impact of technology innovations and the role of government in promoting technology innovations in the energy industry. Our review finds that government policy, private entrepreneurship, technology innovations, private land and mineral rights ownership, high natural gas prices in the 2000s, and a number of other factors all made important contributions to the shale gas boom. Key Words: shale gas, policy, research and development, technology, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling JEL Classification Numbers: Q4, O3, L71 © 2013 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors. Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review. Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.
    [Show full text]